Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: bigbossdan Date: Apr 2, 2008 1:18pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: David v Goliath

I've been away for a few days and don't know if this has been brought up. Any thoughts on the resolution of Comcast's targeting Bittorrent? Seems like good news for both trading and net neutrality.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Apr 2, 2008 4:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

From what I understand, Comcast has also been the vehicle that RIAA is using to intimidate peer to peer traders. It seems that Comcast is the most used service provider for RIAA to run it's electronic search warrants through, then filing suit against file sharing folks with the data extracted. While this is old news, it's ongoing and remains a threat to P2P file sharing.

The latest round of "pre-litigation" warnings went out last October and many lawsuits remain pending from previous action. Although I've made a significant personal effort to DL only live "unpublished" work, I'm getting more paranoid about this issue. (The legal standpoint is that the guy doing the downloading is the primary offender in terms of copyright infringement.)

The suits that the RIAA are filing are for the amount of 750 bucks per copyright infringement. That's $750,000.00 per one hundred songs. They are settling out of court for significantly less, but who needs the bad juju on a sunshiny day?

Here's a couple of links to bring everyone up to speed;

http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=E549F223-3648-E92C-0CA2-7BFAFC2DB352


http://www.eff.org/

EFF has the latest on Comcast and packet forgery.

Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 2, 2008 7:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

Hey Earl--hope you won't mind a request for redux from an ignorant Irish immigrant. I don't know bit torrent from a bite on the ass, and just wonder: does this mean the ave Joe downloading via this methodology is liable? Do they go after the ave downloader or the "site" (if such a thing exists in this world)?

Just curious, and sorry for the questions of a simplistic nature...any insights, as always, appreciated! I am just a less than ave Joe that benefited from those that know what they are doing in the torrenting world of technological complexity that leaves me huddled in the corner with a wee bit of drool...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Earl B. Powell Date: Apr 2, 2008 8:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

Hey Now WT. The RIAA is going after illegal downloaders, and finding them by having the authorities process information warrants on their internet service providers. Apparently the ISP maintains a your footprints wherever you go, including file content and what you've DL'd. Once armed with the file information, they file suit.

As I understand it, they look at the downloader as the principle culprit in terms of copyright abuse, and the bit torrent folks as a secondary accomplice. Like when Kinko's gives you shit about copying a book, they're protecting their asses as well.

As far as this archive goes, there is some sort of agreement in place with the bands represented, so this is probably a safe environment to DL most anything that appears here. I'm sure there's a certain degree of oversight on any of the media within the collection.

Ultimately anything having to do with the Dead, from a collectors standpoint, is probably fairly safe due to their prior policies. Even though their position has changed somewhat, the hair splitting about the boards versus AUDS would probably create a real legal problem for them if it ever got that far.

I think the legal wrangling in the Wolfgang case may have a future impact, as the bands say they did not sign away their rights to those live performances. If the law sides with those bands, there could be trouble in paradise.

It's probably best to avoid the BT sites that have published studio work available for free DL. IMO that those types of files are exactly what the RIAA is seeking out...it's the low hanging fruit for them to pick and prosecute the easiest.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cousinkix1953 Date: Apr 3, 2008 5:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

"I think the legal wrangling in the Wolfgang case may have a future impact, as the bands say they did not sign away their rights to those live performances. If the law sides with those bands, there could be trouble in paradise."

Trouble indeed for Clear Channel Entertainment, the BushCo Republicans, who own everything that Uncle Bobo left behind.

"It's probably best to avoid the BT sites that have published studio work available for free DL. IMO that those types of files are exactly what the RIAA is seeking out...it's the low hanging fruit for them to pick and prosecute the easiest."

I'm not interested in downloading bootleg copies of commercially released albums. U Torrent also encrypts it's peers feeds, so that Comcast and other ISP's have a harder time of identifying specific people...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcgannahan Date: Apr 2, 2008 9:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

what's next, the porn police?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tigerbolt Date: Apr 2, 2008 9:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

gotta watch out for these guys if you download copyright music,video,software et..http://www.websheriff.com/websheriff/

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rastamon Date: Apr 3, 2008 6:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

hmmm...that would leave any torrents of the JGB a big no-no?! I may be San Quentin bound + $1,000,000 fine.
No prob

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mayormarionbarry Date: Apr 2, 2008 1:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: David v Goliath

what was the resolution?